Posted
by
Zonk
on Sunday February 27, 2005 @09:22PM
from the when-making-things-easy-isn't-a-good-idea dept.

powerline22 writes "John Gilmore, the millionare who cofounded the EFF, has been prohibited from travelling because he refused to show an ID while boarding an airplane. He's been under this self-imposed ban since 2002. From the article: "The gate agent asked for his ID. Gilmore asked her why. It is the law, she said. Gilmore asked to see the law. Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is 'Sensitive Security Information.' The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection. What started out as a weekend trip to Washington became a crawl through the courts in search of an answer to Gilmore's question: Why?"

At least, when it comes to the markets. That's his forte. If you want to make money, he's probably the one to listen to.

In this case, we're not talking markets, but the guy still has a point. Without some sort of structure, some rules, you do end up with chaos.

HOWEVER, and this is a point that too many people miss, rules for the sake of rules add nothing to that structure. A decorative wall-hanging is all fine and well, but it adds nothing to the strength or durability of the wall it is hanging on.

Thus, we can say that decorative rules serve no function other than to exist. Removing them does not create chaos, though if they add some aesthetic element to life, removing them may reduce the enjoyment of life. To date, I've never heard of a decorative rule that did add to the aesthetics, but I'm willing to concede that it is possible such rules exist.

Finally, neither necessary nor aesthetic rules require invisibility. A wall is no less a wall if people can see it is there. But if it can be seen, you can tell whether something is functional or not. It certainly can't be aesthetic if it can't be seen.

country after showing a boarding pass and one form of government-issued photo ID and arrived in rental cars that required a valid driver's license and one major credit card.

Everything else I agree with, but if somebody does not have a license, they should not be entitled to drive.The license is a test of worthyness, I don't care WHO they are, just that they have proven experience handling a deadly weapon.

I think the point being made is that laws which citizens are expected to obey should be public. How can you enforce a law that doesn't (for all intents and purposes) exist? And for that matter, how far can that go? If they can enforce an Stasi-like "may I see your papers please?" law without providing any evidence that such law exists, then what else could they theoretically do? And how could your lawyer defend you against a law that the government claims exists, but doesn't make available anywhere?

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"
said Dr. Ferris.

"We want them broken....There's no way to rule innocent men. The only
power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well,
when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many
things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without
breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there
in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be
observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a
nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's
the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it,
you'll be much easier to deal with."

Drug laws are certainly laws that should be looked at in this category.

Alcohol is legal, weed isn't.

When was the last time you saw a bunch of stoners breaking up a bar and having a fight?
Happens with the drinkers every weekend in my City.

Ecstacy is another drug that should be allowed. The youth of today have never been asked if it should be illegal, it was merely declared so because the older generation heard the word "drug" and lashed out.

If there were quasi-legal outlets for weed and ecstacy there wouldn't be such drama between rival dealers, the quality (and therefore quantifiability) of doses would rise, and safety would follow. This would also help a little (obviously not 100%) with the "gateway" idea of these substances. Dealers would be selling legitimate products and would not have to stock the harder drugs. Flood the market with legal sales and illegal ones would be harder to find.

Many people believe that the only reason "drugs" are illegal is because the.GOV can't effectively tax them.

If a (n ab)user requires the means to pay, they need to work to buy their dope, so the problem would not escalate, but there would still be people outside the system, as there are alcoholics/winos with alcohol.

The majority of times police in the UK are called to drug fuelled raves is because the gathering is illegal, or the noise is causing a problem.
These two problems would disappear if more places were open for kids to go, take a few pills, dance for 4 hours, then go have a joint to cool down and chill out.
Mix this with a responsible safe-drive policy and you have a much better weekend out than is currently available with alcohol. No fighting, nobody being glassed, a lot less ass-groping and dancefloor molestation because ecstacy makes physical contact a desirable thing, rather than something to be shunned because the person is too drunk to be polite or comes on too strong and won't take no for an answer.

One MAJOR effect of making weed and estacy legal would be to reduce the crime rate by hundreds of thousands every year. People break these laws every weekend and this makes them laugh off other laws too.

*Note: I used to take a lot of drugs, but have since stopped using them. This to me is an academic argument, not a personal one.

It's one thing to say "do you have a license? and can I see if it's valid?" it's another thing to say "I will now log your driver's license into our database".

If you break the law in a rental car, like running a red light or hitting a pedestrian, the police must to be able to match up the driver (and their licence) to the perpetrator. For this reason, and for the specific case of renting a car, I don't have a problem with handing over my driver's licence details.

OTOH, I would not want to have to show photo ID before I could use a taxi.

John Gilmour's main point, though, is that secret law is an abomination. With this, I agree wholeheartedly.

The Bush-Cheney White House. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

That may be true. However, I can't think of any administration in the past 100 years that wasn't an equally "wretched hive of scum and villainy". Anyone who thinks there is ultimately any difference at all between the GOP and the Dems has been fooled. The focus of both parties is to remove rights from ordinary citizens.

What we need is for everyone to be aware of Jury Nullification [greenmac.com]. The job of a jury is not limited to determining the facts. The real job is to ensure justice is done. This is especially needed to combat the War on Drugs. All we need is one person on each jury who will refuse to convict for drug offences and "Prohibition II" would be over. The same tactic can be used to fight other thefts of rights from the States and the People.

I used to show my receipt at Fry's, until folks like John Gilmore woke me up, so to speak; I haven't shown the receipt since then. My reasoning goes like this: the store is open to the public, they have "loss prevention agents" all over the store, and the path from the cash registers to the exit is segregated from the rest of the merchandise. You may see my receipt only after I am arrested (falsely) for shoplifting. And then you may see my lawyer's card.

Yeah, you ARE aware that, since Fry's is private property, they CAN ask to see your receipt, right? Same at Costco. I asked my father and uncle, both lawyers, to investigate this, and it is PERFECTLY legal for companies to ask you for your receipt and to inspect your bag. Their property, their rules - they are not agents of the state and you are therefore NOT protected from search and seizure.
You are neither hard nor protecting your rights when you refuse to show them your receipt.

Won't inconvenience you? That's why you're a sheep...you can only see the next two seconds in front of your face instead of the long term ramifications.

How valuable is that two seconds if every piece of information about you is tracked in some database? Forever?

How valuable is that two seconds if you no longer control your own personal information, such as where you go, when you go there, who you see, what you buy, and how long you stayed?

How valuable is that two seconds if you travel to someplace for personal reasons, but while you're there, there's a massive political protest in the same city, and the government automatically assumes that's why you went there, and logs it into some database somewhere?

How valuable is that two seconds if you just want to check out, off the grid, for awhile, recharge, meditate, whatever, but someone files a missing persons report on you, and you get tracked because of your ID? Or your cell phone?

How valuable is that two seconds if some event that happened in your past comes back to haunt you in the future, and keeps you from doing something you need or really want to do?

Sheep think about the two seconds. Wolves think about the damage done to the their privacy and their freedom.

I worked at Sam's club last summer as a cashier. The door checkers are instructed to look through the cart and match up everything in the cart to something on the receipt.

This serves three purposes:

a) to make sure cashiers don't mess up like the grandparent mentionedb) to make sure people aren't shopliftingc) to provide a visible deterrant for shoplifters

I was never explicitily told the true purpose of the door checkers, but I'd bet its a little bit of both.

Now all theory aside, in practice the vast majority of people who would work at the doors would hardly check at all. If they did, a huge line would build up of people waiting to leave. Of course some people were real careful, but most of us simply didn't care. Whenever they put me on the door, I would pretend like I was checking everything, look up and down at the receipt a couple times, and then after 10 seconds or so let them go on. I really only checked for very expensive items.

Even if no one actually checked if people were stealing, it still provided a deterrant for people who might be thinking about shoplifting. The average shoplifter doesn't know that most things aren't checked, so seeing someone at the door checking things might persuade them into not stealing.

There was one funny instance where a kid that had just started was working the door, checking receipts, and I was helping this guy who had just bought a huge flat-screen TV. I helped get it from inventory, rang it up at my register, and then helped him put it in his car. On the way out the door, the new kid asked to see the man's receipt, and the man said, "Oh no, I just won this TV" and kept on walking with the TV. He had already paid for it of course, but we had a good laugh as I was helping him get it into his car.

If you give a minute's thought, the "we-can-kick-you-out" rule will render a protestor unable to show at the local Sam's Club -- which now may be the only store in most rural/small towns of the United States. You can protest, and then shop at the 7-11 or gas station for the rest of your life. Until they decide you need to register for a card to shop in their stores. Face FORWARD: turn to the LEFT: place your fingertips in the ink pad, please....

Point hammered: if we let businesses require anything they like to shop at their stores, we are under a tyranny. Businesses are not feudal keeps, subject only to the King. They are corporations which hold a license to exist granted by US through our representatives. A. License. To. Exist. Not a right. They have no rights. If they want to operate stores, they can follow OUR rules. This is the basic failure of American imagination in the 21st century. We don't think we are in charge of anything personally, or think we have civil rights or even a basic right to privacy. BUT we think businesses can do anything they like. Corporations are not only legal citizens with civil rights -- they are the ONLY CITIZENS WITH ANY RIGHTS.

This insane belief has to be rooted out of the national mind and exposed to sunlight.

I think the idea behind keeping the law secret is that it would prevent a terrorist organization from analyzing it to figure out a weakness and exploit it. It's analogous to source code in that a law is essentially a script followed by civic employees. There's a reason why the word 'code' is used in both cases.

I don't agree with it, and judging by the general/. estimation of 'security through obscurity', I doubt many people here do either. But I think that's the theory behind the administration's stance on this.

"I think the idea behind keeping the law secret is that it would prevent a terrorist organization from analyzing it to figure out a weakness and exploit it. It's analogous to source code in that a law is essentially a script followed by civic employees. There's a reason why the word 'code' is used in both cases.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the reason- the problem is that it requires the rule/law to actually DO something productive towards prevention of a problem even before you can consider security through obscurity. Not to mention the fact that just because it's obscured to the public, doesn't mean that the people that ARE obscured couldn't be subborned to reveal the law and any apparent weaknesses. In the case of the "must show ID" regulation (it's NOT a law, mind...) the possession of an ID that maps to the alleged identity for the tickets and boarding passes does NOT mean in any way, shape, or form that the ID is even valid. Bam, there goes the reason for the regulation right there- it doesn't do anything useful against even the least determined attacker. It'd not have prevented or deterred 9/11. It won't prevent or deter another similar attack. So, why in the hell have it in the first place?

This writeup on
Gilmore v. Ashcroft [papersplease.org] is kinda
interesting too as is
FreeToTravel.Org [freetotravel.org] that includes
an FAQ from John [freetotravel.org] - all of
this has been around for a while, but I guess the mainstream media just
"re-discovered" John's story - don't think there has been any
significant change in over a year (?)

This very page [papersplease.org] says that he would have been allowed to travel at SFO without ID if he submitted to a search. That alone devastates the "secret ID law" claim, as allowing him to fly without ID, search or not, would have been in violation of that law. More here [slashdot.org].

I don't think that this is dispositive. From the government's pleadings there clearly is a secret law. Many briefs went back and forth arguing that the government should/should not have to reveal the text of the administrative order.

It seems that the text of the secret rule might allow the TSA to forego the ID requirement in exchange for more strict physical searches.

One basic tennant of any legal system is that none may ignore the law (although I don't know how it's typically formulated in English). How are you supposed to know about a secret law ? It doesn't fit in the system.

They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.

As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.

"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,' " Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.' "

This says that he _did_ consent to being searched... and was then later pulled out, after passing through security.

You're talking about two different things. This was Southwest Airlines at Oakland International Airport. United at San Francisco International Airport would let him fly with no ID. He just chose not to.

As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.
"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,'" Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.'"

So, actually he wasn't allowed on the plane. There is a "Secret ID" law--so secret the government at first wouldn't even awknolge if it did or did not exist. Even today, the government won't cite the secret rule that allegedly requires people to show ID, saying that it is secret and can't be revealed without harming security.

It's official. We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments. It sounds too bad to be true, but each allegation I've listed is documented and verifiable.

Judging from your post, I know you'll be happy to overlook this glaring incongruity - and seeming change of story - to fuel your belief that we live in a police state.

You are right in thinking that I still think that Gilmore has a case. Which account is right. I don't know, and either way there is still a secret law requiring us to "show our papers" to travel within the US.

Interestingly, I see that you can't challenge a single one of my assertions about the current state of the police powers in the United States: "We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments." My position stands unopposed by you with a single fact. The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no. There is literally nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says the Bill of Rights only applies to those the President approves of. This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.

Your straw argument that if some things should be secret then it is ok to have secret laws (like those in Communist China and Soviet Russia) rings hollow. Yes, some things should be secret, such as the details on how to make weapons of mass destruction, but the actual laws we have to follow day to day need to be public so we can know what they are and challenge them if they are unconstitutional.

We do live in 1984. The government can do sneak and peak searches, warrantless secret searches of your medical records, credit card transactions, library records and any "public" record. They can also, without a warrant, record who you phone and when, and many other transactions. The Administration to increase pollution is called Clear Skies; their plan to deforest is called The Healthy Forests Initiative. All I can say is that I think the President is double plus un-good.

I know I'm going to be modded off-topic, but I really don't care, considering how misinformed you are. You live in an urban area don't you? I grew up and still currently live in an area where over 90% of the land is either national or state forest. The current status of our national forests, at least in my state, are pathetic at best. The majority of national forest land is in desperate need of either controlled fires, which are wasteful, dangerous and tough to control, or selective logging. Not all logging is the "Slash-and-Burn-The-Rainforests" type stuff you urban hipsters would like average americans to believe. It has been proven time and time again that selective logging of trees that are dying or failing to thrive allows for greater overall tree health, greater lumber productivity, and allows for greater wildlife density when compared to areas in which proper forest management techniques are not allowed. Have you ever driven through the Squaw Valley area in Nevada and Utah? Those "Forests" are, for all practical purposes dead: they have no wildlife, all the trees are either dead or dying, and the forest isn't even aesthetically pleasing. To dismiss the public forest policy enacted by Bush and company merely because you disagree with other aspects of his policy is shortsighted and harmful to many different species of animals, not just the humans who derive a living and/or recreation from national forest land.

Since those two accounts vary greatly, which one is correct? Which one is the truth?

They are both correct, since they refer to two different incidents. Read the fine page you linked to, it's right there at the top:

July 4, 2002, John Gilmore went to

Oakland International Airport. He had a ticket in his own name with Southwest Airlines to Baltimore-Washington International Airport....
John politely refused to show his ID and was not allowed to fly. John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines. There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

I said I had no problem believing there were secret TSA security directives for airport and airline operations. Do you think all of them should be public?

Hell yes. You want me to abide by your rules, you have to disclose them.

If not, when is it okay for something to be secret?

Tactical military information, sure. (Only for a limited time, though...any classified information should automatically expire after a time limit.) That's about it. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy.

then we have people flipping out that the TSA is trying to secure airports and air travel

The TSA is not trying to secure air travel. The TSA is trying to give the appearance of trying to secure air travel, so people will continue to fly.

You want to make air travel safer? Making passengers show papers does jack. Instead, re-enforce the flight cabin doors, then give every able-bodied person on the plane a big-ass knife. Let any potential terrorists get the Flight 93 [unitedheroes.com] treatment, just give the passengers the tools to do the job. (Guns are problematic in cramped quarters, though the whole explosive decompression thing is a myth.)

Don't like knives? Fine, make it stunguns instead. Put 'em in the seatback pockets right next to the barf bags.

"We do have a fairly robust and open justice system, despite all its flaws, in cases not involving terrorism."

Dude! That is one whopper of a qualification. The whole point is the government in the U.S. can now unilaterally decide what is terrorism, and who is a terrorist, with no proof whatsover, without judicial oversight, and lock the person up indefinitely without access to a lawyer, or to their family, without due process and on a number of occasions have shipped them to third party countries to be tortured by proxy.

The whole crux of their strategy for wiping out our civil liberties and due process, is for them to say "we only do this to terrorists" to which the public is supposed to reply, "oh well if you only do it to terrorists thats OK". The only catch is the government never at any point has to offer any proof the person was actually a terrorist under their new rules, so they in fact can arrest anyone without charges, not just "terrorists".

If you are going to have a civilized nation with due process and the rule of law you HAVE to apply the same rules, equally, to everyone. As soon as you give your government an exemption allowing them to deny due process to one person you have set a precedent allowing them to do it to anyone and everyone, and have opened the door to totalitarianism, and its entirely at the discretion of the powers if they decide to seize the opportunity and turn your country in to a police state.

How can we be bound by a law we can't read? Courts have ruled again and again that ignorance of the law is no excuse... How can we accept that we're bound by laws, which we must know, which we can't know?

Oh, for fuck's sake. He's on a mission to test this, remember? His PURPOSE was to test this, and pursue it in court, and now you're going to use this bullshit argument on me? He made a premeditated decision to politely test this system, and see if he could shake loose the whole "papers, please" issue.

Since that is the case, hell fucking yes he should have tried to get on the plane at SFO. But you choose to take the "um, aren't you surprised he didn't try after he'd been rejected once" tack. By your logic, he shouldn't have even gone to the second airport at all! They told him they'd allow him to fly if he submitted to a search. And while that may have sounded familiar to him, if his goal was to go on a crusade with this, he should have tested it again, yes? And don't give me any bullshit about embarrassment, because he was prepared for this since his goal was to challenge this system.

And yes, I do expect he would have been let on, because *I* have flown without ID before. Twice now! After Sept 11. I lost my wallet and all I had was my plane ticket, going from ORD to MSN. And yes, I had to submit to the special search, but I still flew. So yes, I do expect he could have flown with no ID, albeit with much hassle. Of course you won't believe this, but no matter.

Look, I'm not saying that the system is great, and I think John's cause is worthwhile. I just think that exaggerating things (i.e., that he can't fly with no ID, even though SFO was about to let him - and we'll never know either way, will we - or, that this is a universal issue of being able to travel without "identity papers", when this case applies only to air travel, and there are numerous other ways to travel - and it doesn't matter if they're slower - without ID. The point is that he shouldn't hurt this case by overdramatizing things.)

The difference between Us and John Gilmore? We're not millionaires who think bureaucracy should be spat upon at every step. Sure it sucks, but this is a persons job- show 'em some respect and they chill out (*'cept for the real jerks).

Rights are not just for nice guys. Rights are for everyone. The government shouldn't give random people jobs to harrass people and only let the nice ones travel.

They just searched her. And at BWI, we were so late for the plane, they didn't even search her.

So, if you're nice, no one even bothers to look twice at you. That's amazing high-quality security. Is the whole point of this is to randomly harass not-nice people, or protect people?

Is the whole point of this is to randomly harass not-nice people, or protect people?

Neither. If you think, even for a moment, that the "regulations" in place come close to protecting people, then I have I bridge to sell you.

Its my firm belief that the TSA is the product of a knee-jerk reaction to 9-11. Utilizing politician speak (say something enough times and it becomes true) and wide-scale cognitive dissonance, every one is lulled into a false sense of security; nudge nudge, wink wink.

This case brings up other and more frightening comparisons to the old USSR and other totalitarian governments. The USSR, for example, had a constitution that supposedly guaranteed many of the same rights the US constitution grants; in practice, however, these rights were non-existent due to various secret "exceptions". If your government is enforcing laws that the public doesn't have access to, democracy is impossible. It is essential that the people have the right to inspect and critique the laws they are subject to.

Unfortunately the legal page [papersplease.org] hasn't been updated since November 2004. So what's happenin' John? Has things stalled? Has there been any more progress? If so, can you update the legal page? We are listening, and we do care. Our attention spans are longer than the average person. Why the silence?

If I was driving down the freeway one day, following all the rules, going the speed limit, and a police officer pulls me over for "a traffic violation", but is not willing to tell me what this "traffic violation is", wouldn't I have reason to question why?

I cop did that to me while I was in New York a while back visiting family. And he wouldn't tell me. I was doing the speed limit, signaling when I changed lanes etc. etc.

One thing to note, my car at the time was equiped with a video recorder next to the odometer. Sound and all. When the cop refused to identify why I was being pulled over and asked for I.D. and proof of insurnace (after 5 minutes).. I simply pulled away and called my lawyer, who promptly met me at the next exit.

Video and all, I was exonerated from any charge and the police department was spared a harassment charge and any "financial damage" by me - however it made the news for a few days in my local area. And a formal apology to boot. I tell you, sticking it to "the man" is one thing... but making sure abuse doesn't happen and not tolerating any bullying sure left a warm spot in my heart. Not to mention "fan" mail I actually did recieve.

... on the rule that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". It would be amusing if it were not so tragic. Here are people enforcing laws against others with neither party aware of the full wording of the law.

Here is a law, furthermore, that was not passed in accordance with the constitution. We have faceless individuals deciding on controls on everyday movement and almost no questioning of their right to do so.

I am actually surprised Mr Gilmore has not asked for a court injunction asking either for proof that such a law exists (and its text) or for the regulation to be lifted.

If you enjoy the thought of that and want to read something that contains similar concepts, try reading some Kafka. It is a lot bleaker, a lot darker. I've only read "The Castle" (which is unfinished) and "The Trial", so I can't comment on any of his other work. I'd reccommend "The Trial. Very appropriate for current US society.

I'd say The Trial is in fact more interesting than Catch 22 in this context. Catch 22 is easier to read though.

I don't know about you guys, but I've always felt that if you are going to be restricted by rules and laws, those rules and laws need to be available for your viewing.

I mean, the reason people go to law school and the reason pay lawyers so much money is because the law is something that needs to be done BY THE LETTER. It sounds like the airlines want us just to abide by the spirit of the law.

And while I personally wish society were at point where we COULD just go by the spirit of things, we are not there yet, and so in order to protect OUR rights, and OUR safety, we need to be able to view these laws and make certain we're not getting screwed over.

It reminds me of when my town's high school started making kids wear their sudent ID's around their necks in response to Columbine, with the stated purpose of trying to prevent such a situation in our town by discouraging unauthorized people from entering the school.

Only problem is, there has not been a school shooting I know if that was not perpetrated by a student who is authorized to be at that school.

Same thing with airplanes. "Ha ha, you dumb terrorists! Now you have to prove you bought the ticket to get on the airplane!" I'm sure this inconveniences them much more than it inconveniences me when getting on an airplane. In fact, I bet it inconveniences them so much that they would scrub years or decades of planning. Sure, I get on an airplane once every couple months, and it hasn't made life too much harder for me, but somehow it's magically different for terrorists.

Like most such regulations, it's there to keep the soccer moms happy through the feeling of security.
Realistically, it's meaningless. A criminal will either be sure to not have a prior record or use a fake.

(I am not a lwayer, and this is not legal advice for any person who thinks they face what may or may not be a similar situation)

One of the basic issues driving the airport case is the question of when ignorance of the law IS an excuse. The typical educated layman's answer is never - "Ignorance of the law is no excuse.". While that's generally good advice, real case law is slightly different. It sometimes involves a concept called scientier. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "scientier" in one set of cases as: "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.". In various legal situations, it's definition is broader, but is generally about the intent of the accused.
Several scientier related cases have established that ignorance of a law can become an excuse - IF the ignorance is not the sole fault of the accused. One example of this would be a case where the state itself has put impediments in the way of learning what the law is, and another would be a case where there were substantial natural impediments.
There have been successful challenges at the highest levels (The Supremes basically), in cases where the impediment was natural: One classic case in the area is that of a bookstore (general , rather than "adult") owner, who was found not guilty of violating obscenity law on this principle. He displayed for sale copies of a Grove Press work that had made the state's banned list. However, the copies he recieved from his normal distributer had rather innocuous cover art and a title that was not particularly indicative of the type of work. The court ruled that his defense was sound - the law did not compel a normal person to go to the rediculous length of personally reading every book in a shipment of tens of thousands of copies, or paying thousands of dollars each year for the necessary (at that time) postage and labor to constantly check a lengthy inventory against a state list not made widely available, just to comply.
There are fewer good precidents for cases where the action of the state is involved, and fewer still that have made it to superior courts or the U.S. Supreme court. This looks to be a possible one.
Right now, there is a claim in Texas that holds some of the state laws on sexual conduct are invalid. It's based on the fact that an agency of the state government struck out specific references to those laws in the state's high school text books. The theory is that once one arm of the state acts to make it harder for a person to become educated about the law, the whole state government loses the normal claim that ignorance is no excuse.
This case hinges on the same claim. If it's really that hard to get to see an actual copy of the law involved, how can an individual who intends to comply with the law actually do it? A decision here will impact not just cases like the one in Texas, but may impact a lot of IRS/Tax law, as one of the claims frequently advanced there is that the law is literally too complicated to be understood.

It's about laws you're not entitled to know about but you are bound with.

This one is mostly harmless. But it's just a step away...

Imagine such a law: Any visitor to an anti-government website is considered traitor of the country, subject to arrest and lawsuit, without right to a lawyer, with methods of interrogation like tortures allowed, bound with secret about everything they see or hear, including this law.

Now this law comes into effect, except it's not being published anywhere. Just the same as the "ID check" - you don't get a chance to know it exists possibly until after you've violated it. The agents are free to drag you out of your house and keep you imprisoned for months, then eventually kill you and nobody can do anything about it, they can't even know what happened to you. And it's all fine in the eyes of law - and nobody can protest because nobody knows, and those who know, by knowing are bound by secret, or they violate the law and are subject of prosecution.

That's the method of rule of totalitarian government. Laws you don't know about until it's too late. And of course laws made up on the spot, just as binding because nobody can verify they were made up on the spot...

Then why would the requirement be enforeced by a secret law? Much easier to enforce as an airline reg: "All tickets are non-transferable. Prior to boarding the aircraft you will be required to present an acceptable proof of identification. The following are acceptable".... No biggie. On the other hand, if you have a secret govt law requiring that you show ID to get on the airplane, you get lots of bad press, and someone suing for constituational reasons. Sounds to me like the airlines did this the hard way if they were just trying to keep people from trading tickets.

I noticed that, at the security line, it was always "suggested" that I take off my shoes and put them through the X-ray scanner. I asked if I was "required" to take off my shoes, and was told I was not. But any time I walked through with my shoes on, I was pulled aside for hand scanning and was required to take off my shoes. On one trip, I asked an intelligent-looking security agent if I was required to take my shoes off and he told me "No." I then asked him if I would be automatically pulled aside for hand scanning if I wore my shoes and he gave me an "I could be fired for making this smile so unambiguous" smile. So, I guess the rules ablut shoes are secret, too, although it would take any normal person about 15 minutes of watching to figure it out. I have been really pissed every time since going through security, knowing my government refuses to be straight with me. What if we all wore our shoes through the line?

They slipped it in by the back door. They mandated that all state drivers license data bases be linked together (essentially a distributed database). If they all contain the same basic information (and possibly optional data), and are readable by the same hardware, then we have a national network of cards that are functionaly identical -- the only real difference being the artwork on your national ID card.

The Federal Aviation Administration does have a policy against
traveling without ID. But it is not a secret law. It is not even a federal law.
It is just a policy based on a memo by someone at the FAA. The 3 branches of
government do not feel the need to correct the FAA, because so few people
complain. CFRs are trumped-up administrative rules. Only USCs are laws,
and there are no USCs requiring passengers to have photo IDs for domestic
flights.

I know a little about governments and IDs.

The FAA policy reminds me of Florida Fish And Wildlife posting
(everywhere) that it is illegal to carry a concealed gun in state parks. But the
state attorney states that Fish And Wildlife has no statutory authority over
guns and anyone with a conceal carry permit may carry in state
parks.

I've had a similar problem with Walmart sporting goods
managers telling me that it is against county law to sell ammo after 9 PM. It is
not. It is just their store policy, but they want to use the excuse that it is a
law.

The problem is not with the Federal government. The problem
is with the general public. We need to have more people like John Gilmore. At a
basic level, we're imposing this dictatorship on ourselves.

Perhaps we should start a petition to have the movie 1984 played
on a TV network. Might wake up the sleeping public. Another step would be to
have the Constitution and, at least, the first 10 Amendments printed on the back
of our paper currency, not mystic, cryptic Masonic symbols.

I
fail to see how an administration that supports the right to own weapons that
can overthrow a government is the bogeyman of tyranny. For those that don't
think that civilians with their "puny" guns could take down a hypothetical
American dictatorship, consider that there are more than 240 million guns owned
by 85 million civilians in the US.

To
really understand the tone of the 1st and 2nd, one should read the preamble to
the 10 amendments. (Usually not taught in government schools, so most have never
heard of it) "The conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of
their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive
clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the
Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its
institution."

The first phrase of the 2nd is a declarative. It was the style
of writing legal documents in the late 1700's to include a preamble. The
preamble states a purpose, not a limitation on the language in these government
charters. The phrase "well regulated" means well-trained and well-equipped, in
proper working order. Ex: "a well regulated clock." "A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Interestingly, the Militia
Act of 1792 was law until 1903 (updated by 10 USC). The Militia Act of 1792
stated "That each and every free able-bodied white ma

Fair enough, but if a highway patrol officer stops you, it's assumed that you've done "something wrong". This is more like asking to see your ID and proof of insurence before they let you step into your car, or pull onto the road.

No, the man is not concerned because nobody has taken the time to produce a copy of the law

Good point, the law of the land should never be allowed to be kept secret - there is no legitimate justification for that in a democracy. "But it hasn't been written yet" is not a legitimate excuse.

What is it with the USA? The cold war is long over but we see the former USSR steadily getting more democratic and the USA steadily adopting more totalitarian tactics.

National security should never be used as an excuse when "I just want to do whatever I want" is the real reason.

The case of this guy is trivial. The case of not disclosing the information and saying "Because I said so" is not - many non-democratic third world countries can't even get away with and at least have flimsy pretexts based on published laws when they do things injustly. Think of what sort of injustice you can get up to when you don't have to rely on published laws and superiors are not expecting you to be responsible for your actions until the press find out.

This case is very different. With a highway cop you know what the laws are, some states require you to show ID (e.g. Nevada) and the Supreme Court recently upheld such laws. You can investigate those laws if you like, vote for or against them in you r home state and avoid states where they have such laws if you don't like them.
In the Gilmore v. Ashcroft case, the "law" in question is actualy an agency rule. Rules passed by adminstrative agencies have the force of law, but are not created by adminstrators, not by representative bodies. This case is particularly noxious because the government is claiming that the law itself is a secret. You are not permitted to see the rule that binds you, you simply have to trust the TSA people that such a rule exists and that they are enforcing it fairly.
We now live in a nation where we are bound by secret laws. I'm sure some of the tin-foil hat people can tell you why that's a bad thing.

So you are perfectly ok with living under laws that you are not allowed to read or know about?

And if you think showing ID does one bit of good regarding airline security, I would love to join you in that dream world. Are you under the impression that IDs are hard to get? Do you believe that the 9/11 guys did not have valid IDs?

Wait a minute. Person with a uniform and a role of auhtority says to a citizen, "Show me your ID." Citizen asks, "Why?" Person with authority says, "Because it's the law." Citizen asks, "What law?", and the person with authority doesn't have an answer.

If persons with authority start telling people what to do on the grounds that the law says they can, and then it turns out that they don't know what they are talking about, indeed for all appearances might just be making it up, then there are no limits to what citizens can and will be forced to do. If that's not a grave threat to civil rights, I don't know what is. It no longer matters what the law does and does not allow, the law doesn't make any difference any more if anyone with a badge can claim, "It's the law" and then without any further explanation demand anything they want.

It's never wrong to question authority. Authority can be expected to have an answer.

Well, then, Anonymous Brave Guy, allow me to rebut a few specific points. Apologies if I have misconstrued or misquoted any.

1) People who enforce laws shouldn't be required to have all of them memorized.

Well, I'm going to agree that the average street cop doesn't need to know tax law. But I assert that someone who enforces one very small specific subset of laws, e.g. TSA law enforcement, should in fact have a VERY thorough understanding of what is and is not illegal within the purview of those laws. That IS their job. Otherwise, that person may enforce personal preference or prejudice rather than the laws, or allow illegal activity to continue and thus endanger the lives of passengers. I'll go further and suggest that there should be on duty at all times some TSA enforcement person who has a written copy of such laws available for public perusal and for agent reference. This is my opinion, of course, not fact. I'd like to go on record as vigorously disagreeing with both your opinion and the factual basis underlying it.

2. Common sense suggests that a law requiring ID to board a commercial airliner exists and is reasonable.

Common sense is neither.

More specifically, I would assert that common sense suggests that if there is a law requiring you to show said ID, it can be found without having to break it first. That wasn't the case. The author might have tried to find such a law (the fine article doesn't say), perhaps in reaction to a previous TSA enforcer's actions*, or out of a desire not to have to tell every random stranger in a uniform that he was an epileptic, and couldn't.(*Having flown several times in the last year, I can relate from experience that TSA people can often be rude, unpleasant, and leave one with a sense that one's privacy and dignity has been invaded unnecessarily. )Common sense suggests that if one searches diligently to find a law prohibiting or requiring some pattern of behavior, and can't, then that law doesn't exist. That wasn't the case.

3. Making the scene that he did was unnecessary.

How else do you find out about secret laws, other than breaking them? Clearly we can't trust our lawmakers to be open about what's illegal. Applying common sense, as we've seen above, won't do either.

As mentioned previously, he may have had perfectly legitimate reasons for not wanting to show his papers - excuse me, for not wanting to show or have a TSA-approved photo ID.

Turning this around, common sense suggests that hiring a lawyer to file a court case to ask the government whether a specific law exists is unnecessary. However, this is what you said was "the correct answer." I'm thinking that perhaps common sense means something else when you say it. Maybe that's why we have laws instead of asking everyone to rely on their common sense...?

4. The TSA enforcement people reacted appropriately to this incident, as they would to a threat against the President.

I didn't really understand this - I'm hoping this was you being unclear in your phrasing, rather than as simple-minded as it appeared. Joking about assassinating the President is not a particularly parallel case. It's explicitly illegal [about.com], a Federal crime, and the law is readily available for citizens to read. Moreover, the foreigner who jokingly makes such a threat will quickly meet some nice Treasury Agents, probably members of the Secret Service, each of whom is perfectly capable of telling him exactly which laws he has broken. They will be polite, knowledgeable, and very serious.

TSA agents pulling a man out of line without being able to cite the relevant law is not reasonable or appropriate. This is NOT a personal fiefdom for agents to throw around personal power; this is a sensitive position in which agents are tasked with enforcing laws to protect "transportation"**. The agent's responses, FTFA, suggested that he pulled Gilmour at least in part because he

No, he can't - the federal government mandates that all airlines require identification. As I stated in another post, IF the airline were TRULY a private business imposing certain requirements on potential customers, THEN this would be acceptable. As it stands, however, the airline is a de facto corporation of the federal government.

Since you consider yourself a liberal, I'll take this opportunity to say "thank you" - you guys are the ones that have always clamored for more government involvement in everything.

Did you bother reading the fine article? You did, Oh, are you one of those individuals who does poorly in reading comprehension tests? You must be, because if you had read the article you would have found out that Gilmore has epilepsy and lost his driver's license because of it. If you had bothered to read the article you also would have found out that the airlines claimed that it was not their policy but one they were forced to comply with by the federal government. Also the airlines are not allowed to just adopt any policy they like, as an example if an airline said "we don't like niggers and we don't let them on our planes" they'd be grounded pretty quickly by the federal government. Of course the federal government says that there is a policy but that we, the people who the federal government ostensibly serve, and who actually pay for the federal government, are not allowed to see it. If you can't see the danger in having the government create and enforce secret laws that the citizenry is expected to follow but not allowed to read then you're even dumber than your post makes you out to be. Who is to say that there isn't a secret law on the books that would allow me to come out to your house and hook some electrodes up to your nuts and show you all of the fun things that went on in Abu Ghraib? There might be a rule on the books that allows me to do this, but it's sensitive security information, so you can't see it, now shut up and stop screaming before I turn the voltage up even higher.

There are some people who are smart enough to be bothered by the whole concept of having a bunch of government bureaucrats enforcing secret and unwritten laws on an unknowing populace and then there are stupid bastards such yourself who aren't much higher on the intellectual food chain than say a retarded steer, or perhaps a particularly bright carp.

First, he doesn't have a driver's license. Second, he doesn't have a problem with the law that says you have to show ID to get on a plane. He just wants someone to show him a copy of it and the government claims that the details of the law cannot be divulged to the public. Liberal or conservative you shouldn't like the idea that the government can hold you accountable to rules that they won't divulge.

how is it possible to be a law-abiding citizen when the government passes laws you aren't even allowed to know about? "just use common sense" is not justification, because there are thousands of laws which are not sensible at all.

They reached a strange agreement for an argument about personal privacy: In lieu of showing ID, Gilmore would consent to an extra-close search, putting up with a pat-down in order to keep his personal identity to himself. He was wanded, patted down and sent along.

As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.

"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,' " Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.' "

Except, as has been documented before, the ID requirement does absolutely nothing to increase security. All 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 would have been able to freely board, as they would have had the necessary documents and likely would have not necessarily been on any watchlist.

however, if there isn't a law and the airlines are making shit up the need to be called on it. Likewise if there really is some 'secret law' on the books it needs to be exposed as the very idea of 'secret laws' is totally against the basic ideal of having a free society.

If I'm getting on an airplane, I feel better that everyone has to show an ID.

True! You do feel better! Unfortunately, you are no safer, but everyone has less privacy. Is the loss of their privacy worth happy feelings on your part? Perhaps you should take happy pills instead? That way, you'll still be happy, and other people will still have their privacy.-russ

You are not required to carry ID with you at all when you drive. You are only required to furnish proof of a licence to drive within an applicable time period or you get a fine. They can still look you up by name and address. At least in the state of NY and most New England states, they can pull up your picture as well. Having an licence with your picture simply makes it easier for them.

Most cops I have met are really nice guys and are pretty lenient about a lot of things. Including not having I.D. when you drive. I don't carry any ID with me when I drive/fly/whatever. It's not that I'm a raving zealot about being free, it's simply something I never have done, nor was ever inclined to do.

It's natural to pay for things in cash, or over the internet, drive and fly without ID. It's not hard. You simply can't be clueless about it and even ask for help in situations where it'll be a hassle when someone does ask for ID (such as in airports).

You should never expect to have someone request ID unless you've done something wrong as in illegal, against the law etc.

I've spent a couple of days in jail since I didn't produce my ID for something I wasn't even involved in. I gave them my first name and called my lawyer. Nuff said. Since I didn't do anything wrong, they had no business knowing who I was.

Look, I'm not a privacy anal retentive person - but when people try and snoop into your business, people who don't know you or especially a government agent or agency when I have done nothing wrong - a "suspicion" based on profiling or my personality or any thing else they deem as "unnormal" is simply wrong and goes against principles of freedom the founding fathers wanted to ensure we had.

Not to mention I'm a white, upper middle class american. It's not like I'm an easy target to racial profiling (my apologies, but racial targeting and profiling is a sickening problem and I really can't stand it).

People don't have a head on their shoulders these days or excercise common sense. It's truely pitiful.

Why should you need to show a credit card to buy something not on the credit card? I tried to report a car running a red light and almost hitting me on my bike. The police wanted to see my drivers license. Um- I wasn't driving. As a cyclist, I'm not required to have a drivers license. So, why ask for it?

Just because things are ubiquitious in our society doesn't make them right. Most of the time you are 'required' to flash a card, it's for the convenience of the other party.

And so is your point since overstaying a visa is hardly compelling evidence for terrorist activity.

It is silly to think these rules happen in a vacuum. The terrorists are quite well aware of them and if they had a rule which stopped people who had overstayed their visas the terrorists would have known this and only used agents who hadn't overstayed their visa.

The point is there is yet to be a compelling argument that these ID restrictions really give us much security. The burden of proof should be on those who want to impose such measures not on us to show that such measures aren't useful.

Actually, it's an FAA regulation. It is, however, a secret FAA regulation. And this is the crux of the matter. There should not be secret laws in a democracy. And that is a far more important matter than whether or not you have to produce ID to board a plane (which itself is important).

Boarding an airline is a service provided to you by a company. There is no inherent "right" to be able to fly. You are allowed to board as long as you provide what the airline requests, whether it be an ID or an inflatable banana.

If that were actually the case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. But the reason the airlines have these policies is to (supposedly) comply with Federal Law. I say suposedly because we can't see the law. And the Government requiring it's citizens to show ID before traveling is what people are upset about.

Like in the article, where does the government require you to show ID? Just because the airline wants to see ID doesn't mean the Govt. requires them to ask. The article points out a misinformed employee more than it does a law.

Please RTFA before making stupid comments like this.

FROM THE ARTICLE...

The regulation under which the Transportation Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, instructs the airlines to collect such identification is classified as "Sensitive Security Information."

Boarding an airline is a service provided to you by a company. There is no inherent "right" to be able to fly.

Then maybe we should also be talking about how the airlines have no right to taxpayer subsidies. The airline industry willingly solicits and accepts "bail out" money and has a major portion of their security provided by the feds. You want to play free market purist, fine. Let's do it. Stop stealing my hard-earned money and handing it to the airlines. Then we can talk about whether they've got a "right" to deny me service. OK?

The problem is that there is NO evidence that it was who the Bush administration says it is. All they have is:

The pristine condition passport "found" at ground zero

The phone calls made from the jets, which were a) not technically possible to make [feralnews.com] and b) the eye "witnesses" said they had red banadanas, when Al Qaidas colour is green. That just would not happen, it would be like the US going to war under a red hammer and sickle.

Flight manuals and a copy of the Koran found at the airport. Excuse me, but if you've been training for an operation for several years, you don't carry papers with you on the drive to the airport that would incriminate you if given a random stop/search by the local authorities.

A dozen other reasons that I can't be bothered to go into, such as the lack of video evidence of anything, despite the airports and the Pentagon being some of the most monitored places on the plannet.

The whole thing reeks. And the response of those in charge on the day is inconstistent with every standard operating proceedure in place.

Sounds way too much like Operation Northwinds [ratical.org] to me, where the US intended justify an unprovoked war against Cuba, in order to "protect itself from terrorism".

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight. - US Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1962